can upper tribunal withdraw permission to appeal after it has been granted

I just wondered whether it is possible that UT can revoke permission to appeal already granted by UT. I looked at UT Procedure Rules and could not find anything about this.

My client had 2 separate appeals - (1) against decision finding she was LTAHW with her landlord, and (2) against the decision that there was a recoverable OP resulting from decision (1) .

The 2 appeals had separate tribunal reference numbers but were listed on the same day. In December 2009, tribunal heard (1) and did not make decision straight away. Appeal (2) was adjourned. Appeal (1) was then disallowed, notified in the post. 

Applied for permission to appeal against LTAHW decision,  TS refused , so applied to UT. UT judge made directions for SSWP to make submissions on merits of application.

SSWP submissions supports application, on grounds that FTT did not adequately deal with revision/supersession issue R(IB)2/04; and because there was no evidence that alleged partner was in ‘remunerative work’. UT grants permission to appeal on 23.9. for the reasons set out in SSWP submissions.  I have 1 month to make comments.

I agree with what SSWP says. However, I thought this was all to be dealt with in appeal (2), which still has not been heard.  Appeal (1) only dealt with whether or not the appellant and her landlord were LTAHW, so in my opinion the SSWP’s grounds for supporting the appeal are not relevant for the LTAHW issue, or am I missing something? 

If I point out in my further submissions that there has not been a FTT level decision on OP and recoverability yet and that there is another, unheard appeal dealing with these issues, is there a risk that UT judge will withdraw permission to appeal against LTAHW (as neither him nor SSWP can have been too impressed with the arguments I made about adequacy of findings of fact and reasons for decision) and then direct for appeal (2) to go ahead?

LTHAW is not an outcome decision therefore not appealable at all however if there was a decision terminating benefit for instance i.s then that would be the outcome decision. If the termination of the weekly benefit is the decision that was made and then appealed
then revision/supersession is entirely relevant to that and so is whether or not the alleged partner is in renumerative work because
without that evidence the S of S cannot discharge the burden of proof that there is no entitlement to benefit. The decision is incomplete as if the hours were small and the earnings low income support or jsa entitlement might continue.

Sometimes in these cases from the appeal papers it is not clear whether there has actually been an outcoome decision notified or not.

Thanks Chris,  this seems to be exactly what I have failed to understand.